Search results

To provide a framework for understanding and analyzing economizing in differentiated distribution networks.

The paper is conceptual and reviews and develops some of the concepts and ideas provided by Wroe Alderson. The developed framework is then used in combination with some principle empirical examples from the PC industry to illustrate how the framework can be used in order to understand economizing in differentiated distribution networks. The paper also brings forward some methodological concerns regarding the use of the transvection concept in an empirical setting.

The paper concludes that by using a transvection approach three key concepts with regard to economizing in differentiated distribution networks can be identified; crossing points, sorting, and uniformity. These are interrelated and together they provide insight with respect to the logic of economizing in these kinds of networks.

The paper brings forward some “old” Aldersonian concepts in a “modern” setting and shows how these concepts can be used to understand economizing in differentiated distribution networks. The transvection is reintroduced as a useful concept for analyzing distribution structures, and the author found, in particular, that the concept is highly useful for understanding today's modern distribution arrangements.

Evaluates Wroe Alderson’s general theory of marketing as a possible platform for further developing Michael Porter’s ideas on strategic management. Alderson’s “transvection” and Porter’s “value system” are compared, and the uses of these concepts by their authors in developing approaches to achieving sustainable competitive advantage are contrasted. The potential for extension of each theory based on their similarities and differences is discussed. Presents examples showing how Alderson’s ideas may be used to resolve impasses in Porter’s work, and how recent empirical work testing Porter’s value system may be useful in extending and justifying Alderson’s transvection ideas. More generally, we suggest that Alderson’s general theory may provide a starting point for integrating Michael Porter’s ideas with the concepts from the “resource‐based view” of strategy, and that instances of independent formulation of nearly‐identical theories present special opportunities for scholars interested in both theory building and theory testing.

This paper's aim is to develop an understanding of how responsiveness in a supply network may be approached from a combined relationship marketing (RM) and supply chain management (SCM) view in a complete seafood supply network context.

The paper takes the form of a case study of the upstream part of an integrated supply network from broodstock to predominately export sales.

Developing responsiveness involves two types of competence; technically generating value through the supply network through product transformations and knowing what the end‐user perceives as value. SCM is proposed as generating value through technical product‐transforming processes while RM as facilitating customer sensing through developed conceptions of value perception in the context of business relationships. Intertwining SCM and RM competencies to achieve responsive product supply is proposed by using Alderson's largely unnoticed transvection understanding of complete marketing channels.

The paper is a novel combination of business management fields evoking differences and complementarities to develop business relationships through intertwining RM and SCM to secure value realisation from an end‐user perspective from a multi‐tier supply network perspective. In business practice this approach provides a mindset and some developed models useful in both strategic planning of a company's role in a wider supply chain setting as well as guidance regarding the purpose of cross‐functional teamwork in operations.

Increasing attention to sustainability has made product recovery issues increasingly significant. Although several studies portray product recovery arrangements as networks, these constellations have not been analyzed with network models. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the organizing of product recovery networks.

Previous research highlighted the need for a holistic perspective on product recovery. Industrial network theory provides such a framework, based on three dimensions of business reality: activities, resources and actors. The research method applied is a qualitative case study approach of product recovery in the PC industry.

The most significant issues in the organizing of product recovery concern the coordination of interdependent activities and the combining of physical and organizational resources. Effective organizing is contingent on interaction and information exchange among firms. Furthermore, the sorting rules applied in the product recovery process are crucial for the performance in the activity chain from disposer to end-user.

The study deals with product recovery of PCs, and needs to be supplemented with research in other empirical contexts.

The study offers companies broader perspective on their product recovery operations by illustrating how they are related to a wider network.

The study applies a novel perspective on product recovery. The analytical framework and the qualitative approach complement mainstream approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate four of Alderson's key concepts to show how they explain mass customization and extend traditional consumer goods classifications. The four concepts are: heterogeneous markets, transvections, the principle of postponement, and routinized transactions.

In this exploratory paper, Alderson's main concepts are compared and contrasted with today's marketing phenomena and are used for updating traditional consumer goods categorizations.

The main concepts of Aldersonian theory discussed in the paper – heterogeneous markets, transvections, postponement and routinized transactions – are a remarkably good fit with today's “mass customization” and logically lead to an enhanced of definition of consumer goods classifications.

This is a conceptual paper meant to emphasize the apparent explanatory power of Alderson's concepts to today's marketing phenomena. Formal propositions have not been developed and tested.

Traditional classifications of goods no longer accurately explain marketing phenomena arising from the growth of the internet and mass customization. Alderson's concepts provide an effective framework for explaining current phenomena and extending outmoded models.

The four main Alderson concepts evaluated in this paper have not been emphasized as a group before, nor have they been utilized to help explain mass customization and extend traditional consumer goods classifications.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether there is significant agreement on what constitutes the essential elements for building a general theory of the marketing system.

The method is an historical review of the various concepts, elements, sub-theories, axioms, components, explananda and ingredients proposed by marketing scholars over the past half century who contributed to the development of a general theory of the marketing system.

The main finding is that despite the diversity of terms and concepts found in the marketing literature, there is considerable agreement on the essential elements necessary to build a general theory.

The value of this work is in assembling and organizing the various concepts, elements, sub-theories, axioms, components, explananda and ingredients of a general theory. Scholars are encouraged to examine the pieces and re-join the quest to construct and empirically test a general theory of the marketing system.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how theories evolve within scientific fields: why they receive attention and why they eventually become less attractive.

The paper is based on a literature review and focusses on the theoretical structure developed by Wroe Alderson. His contributions were highly appreciated and generally considered as “the” marketing theory. However, in few years his broad perspective was more or less neglected within the field where it was developed. At the same time, Alderson’s basic thinking was adopted by the evolving IMP approach. The specific objective of the study is to analyse why researchers in marketing abandoned Alderson, while IMP adopted many of his ideas.

The paper illustrates significant aspects of the evolution of theories. First, the paper shows how well-established conceptualisations, like Alderson’s total systems approach, may lose impact when the focus of research shifts. Alderson’s holistic framing was found too broad and all-encompassing to be useful when research attention was directed to specific aspects of marketing management and the socio-behavioural approach to distribution. Second, the paper shows in what respect IMP found support in concepts and models presented by Alderson in the challenging of fragmented mainstream framings of the business landscape.

This paper relates the rise and fall of Alderson’s concepts and frameworks to the evolution of theories of other schools-of-thought. Furthermore, the study shows how Alderson’s ideas were adapted to other research fields than where it was originally developed.

The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative view of marketing that Donald F. Dixon spent much of his distinguished career developing – a paradigm that we refer to as the Dixonian systems perspective of marketing. It is a paradigm that presents marketing as a phenomenon that reaches far beyond the micro/managerial marketing mix paradigm.

Analysis and interpretation of Donald F. Dixon's and colleagues' scholarly work to distill the essence of Dixon's view of marketing, which we refer to as the Dixonian systems perspective of marketing.

The Dixon's systems perspective of marketing offers a framework for the analysis of macromarketing issues that is not provided by the conventional marketing mix micro/managerial paradigm.

The paper provides a concise overview of the macro/systems ideas and concepts of marketing contained in Donald F. Dixon's and his colleagues' extensive writings that to date has not been available from any other source.

The purpose of this article is to explore possible contributions to the development of models to define business networks conceptually, and identify and delineate them empirically by integrating concepts and ideas from “market exchange theory” originating in the works of Alderson.

Following a conceptual discussion defining business networks as a type of exchange system, empirical data were used to exemplify and illustrate the theoretical development ideas. From data on 22 business firms collected in 1999‐2001 in the form of transcribed interviews and other print documentation, a business network as a type of exchange system was identified comprising five business entities. This case serves as illustration to the remainder of the theoretical discussions throughout the paper.

Based on a conceptualisation of business networks as a type of exchange system and a notion of interaction encompassing exchange processes stemming from both market exchange theory and social exchange theory, it is suggested that business networks can be more consistently identified and delineated empirically using this theoretical base.

The empirical case is merely illustrative, and more extensive empirical work is needed to further test the ideas of business networks as a type of exchange system. The implications to the study of markets‐as‐networks are that these ideas can be used as a basis for identification, delineation and analysis of business networks.

This paper extends Alderson's work by suggesting a fourth type of transformation: transformation in ownership, as well as by developing a typology with five resource types in the exchange system. Furthermore, it provides a conceptual tool that can be used by researchers to identify, delineate and analyse business networks and incorporates market exchange theory.

States that marketing theory experienced a scientific crisis 30 years ago and a new paradigm of “functionalism” emerged, however, current thinking in marketing reflects the older paradigm of “normal science”. Suggests a research agenda rooted in the “functionalist” paradigm. Concludes that the “functionalist” paradigm provides a general analytical framework for the study of marketing in which the firm is placed in the hierarchy of marketing systems, which can be used to guide research in marketing.